Best & worst writings by Trotsky or Trotskyists

try some stuff by Michael Löwy: Morning Star: Surrealism, Marxism, Anarchism, Situationism, Utopia or Redemption and Utopia: Jewish Libertarian Thought in Central Europe : a Study in Elective Affinity

worst: e.g. Gerry Healy: A Revolutionary Life by Paul Feldman and Corinna Lotz (Foreword by Ken Livingstone) or Pierre Foulan's "Introduction into the Study of Marxism" (not available in English)

BEST:
Leon Trotsky, Results and Prospects, History of the Russian Revolution
Harold Isaacs, The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution
Felix Morrow Revolution and Counterrevolution in Spain
Abram Leon The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation

by the old man himself: Our Political Tasks (1904), his take on Lenin's What is to be done and One Step Forwards, Two Steps Back, a text, most contemporary orthodox Trotskyists simply ignore ... and as usual, the best can be found at the fringes and in less orthodox traditions who went "beyond Trotskyism"

Totally agree re Our Political Tasks, you can see why the elder Trotsky renounced its radical critique of Leninist susbtitutionism:

LONG LIVE THE SELF-ACTIVITY OF THE PROLETARIAT!

DOWN WITH POLITICAL SUBSTITUTIONALISM!

By giving a detailed exposition of different examples it has been my intention to draw attention to the difference in principle which separates two opposing methods of work. And this difference, in essence, is decisive, if we are to define the character of all work carried out by our Party. In the one case we have a party which thinks for the proletariat, which substitutes itself politically for it, and in the other we have a party which politically educates and mobilises the proletariat to exercise rational pressure on the will of all political groups and parties. These two systems give objectively quite different results.
[...]
The system of political substitutionism, exactly like the system of simplification of the “Economists,” proceeds – consciously or not – from a false and “sophistical” understanding of the relationship between the objective interests of the proletariat and its consciousness. Marxism teaches that the interests of the proletariat are determined by the objective conditions of its existence. These interests are so powerful and so inescapable that they finally oblige the proletariat to allow them into the realm of its consciousness, that is, to make the attainment of its objective interests and its subjective concern. Between these two factors – the objective fact of its class interest and its subjective consciousness – lies the realm inherent in life, that of clashes and blows, mistakes and disillusionment, vicissitudes and defeats. The tactical farsightedness of the Party of the proletariat is located entirely between these two factors and consists of shortening and easing the road from one to the other.

The class interests of the proletariat – independently of the present political conjuncture “in general” and, in particular, of the level of consciousness of the working masses at a given moment – can nonetheless only exert pressure on this conjuncture via the consciousness of the proletariat. In other words, in the political reckoning, the Party cannot count on the objective interest of the proletariat which are brought out by theory, but only on the conscious organised will of the proletariat.

Leaving aside the “prehistoric,” sectarian circle period which every Social Democratic Party goes through and in which its methods are much closer to educational utopian socialism than to political revolutionary socialism, in which it knows only socialist pedagogy, but not yet political tactics; if one considers a Party already past this infantile period, the essentials of its political work are expressed, in our opinion, in the following outline: the Party bases itself on the given level of consciousness of the proletariat; it will involve itself in every important political event by making an effort to orient the general direction towards the immediate interests of the proletariat, and, what is still more important, by making an effort to imbed itself in the proletariat by raising the level of consciousness, to base itself on this level and use it for this dual purpose. Decisive victory will come the day we overcome the distance separating the objective interests of the proletariat from its subjective consciousness, when, to be more concrete, such an important section of the proletariat will have gained an understanding of its objective of social revolution, that it will be powerful enough to remove from its path, by its own politically organised strength, every counter-revolutionary obstacle.

The greater the distance separating the objective and subjective factors, that is, the weaker the political culture of the proletariat, the more naturally there appear in the Party those “methods” which, in one form or another, only show a kind of passivity in the face of the colossal difficulties of the task incumbent upon us. The political abdication of the “Economists,” like the “political substitutionism” of their opposites, are nothing but an attempt by the young Social Democratic Party to “cheat” history.

Would defo second Michael Löwy, I always enjoy reading him. I like Esther Leslie's stuff too.

A Trot tract I was recommended on here is Mary Low and Juan Brea's account of their time in Spain during the revolution, Red Spanish Notebook, which is fascinating and beautifully written.
http://www.marxists.org/history/spain/writers/low-brea/red_spanish_notebook.html

Trotskyism seems heavily influenced by liberalism, parliamentary democratism, trade unionism, reformism, Fabianism, and has somewhat Jacobin international tendencies.
I have some regard for trade unions, but I am suspicious or opposed to the rest of those.

^^^WTF^^ best and worst writings

No, that wasn't in reference to your question, but rather anarchoStalinist's "response."

I found it worthwhile reading his writings on the unions and polemics against syndicalists, in disagreement.

I find trotsky's writing style a strange mix of rational inquiry and then unsupported assertions. He'll string together a quite well thought out analysis with complete conjecture or analogy, turning it into a point in his argument. Its clear that he's not writing in a genuine inquiry/discourse, but in political rhetoric masked in fake discourse.

Perhaps it sounds persuasive when read out on a soap box, but otherwise it just comes across like it is written for the naive. I've read far more persuasive texts on the unions from a variety of positions and sources, so its weird that trotsky's postions were so influential, and makes me think that throughout the history of the workers movement it has never been the case that the most intelligent and correct ideas automatically win.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1933/09/unions-britain.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/tu.htm
http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/trotsky/works/britain/ch07.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/unions/3-commsyn.htm

additionally, there are quite a lot of scholars from Trotskyist backgrounds who produce(d) good stuff, e.g. historians like Charles Post, Stephanie Coontz, Alan Wald, Erwin Ackerknecht (probably one of the most important writers on the history of medicine of the 20th century), Baruch Hirson, Perry Anderson, Luis Vitale, etc., stuff on critical psychoanalysis by Helmut Dahmer; some of the writings on economy by Mandel, Rosdolsky, Kidron, Wolf, etc. ... and there is of course Franz Jakubowski

p.s.: would be interesting to know, if Pannekoek and Jean van Heijenoort ever have crossed swords outside politics, on matters like astronomy and mathematics

Harry Braveman's Labor & Monopoly Capital is pretty good. It's basically a history of the reorganisation of labour from around ~1880 to ~1970, runs parallel to a lot of operaismo, of which it was a contemporary, and although not coming to the same political conclusions (Braverman was apparently a "Cochranite", although I'm buggered if I know what that means) has a lot to contribute to that sort of outlook. The primary shortcomings are that, given that it dates to the early '70s, Braveman has relatively little to say about, and doesn't address outsourcing at all, although I don't think that in either case what we've seen in the last thirty years would fundamentally alter his analysis (and in fact I think would largely confirm it).

(Also, I've just realised that we don't appear to have this in the library, so I should probably upload it.)

Tim Finnegan

Harry Braveman's a "Cochranite"

pejorative term by the orthodox Trotskyists (the "Cannonites") for the Socialist Union of America, 1953-59, some of their texts here

A dissident tendency had begun to crystallize within the SWPs Michigan/Ohio District around 1948-1949led by Bert Cochran. It included the SWP fractions within the UAW locals in Flint and Detroit, Michigan, as well as Toledo and Cleveland, Ohio; the fractions in the United Rubber Workers in Akron, led by Jules Geller; and a group around Harry Braverman within the United Steelworkers in Youngstown. This tendency was beginning to have grave doubts about the sectarian nature of the SWP, and felt that the concepts of democratic centralism and the vanguard party were out of place in the context of the United States in 1950s. They did not believe that capitalism was heading for a revolutionary crisis, and felt that a socialist educational group for propaganda among the workers was more appropriate at that point than a vanguard party. They also believed in making alliances with the Communists within the CIO unions to fight against expulsions, and that Communists and fellow travelers should be the primary area of recruitment, especially as many were becoming disillusioned with Stalinism.

p.s., one of their central texts: Prospects of American radicalism

Tim Finnegan

Harry Braveman's Labor & Monopoly Capital ...

(Also, I've just realised that we don't appear to have this in the library, so I should probably upload it.)

someone already put it online: http://www.scribd.com/doc/40068506/Labor-and-Monopoly-Capitalism

If Rosdolsky counts as a Trotskyist, then definitely his The Making of Marx's Capital.

he didn't liked the term and called himself a "Marxist" (without adjectives, etc. ;-)) ... he was at least involved in Trotskyist groups up to 1939 but never joined any org after the war

the first year of the "Cochranite" American Socialist (1954) now completely online at MIA: http://marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/amersocialist/american_socialist.htm

"Not Automatic" about Genora Dollinger. Dollinger was one of the women who founded the Woman's Committee during the Flint Sit down strike. Very well written after her death by her husband, Sol. Great story, lots of political discussion of how CP, SP, Trots, IWW and Proletarians all worked together and their part in the whole.

And as importantly, how the women of Flint joined together to support the Sit Down and how they helped win the strike.

I think this is also the place where one of the most inspiring labor stories I know. About the black worker who snuck into the sit down and refused to leave. He wasn't GM but was supportive of the sit down. No other blacks there. He sat down and wouldn't leave the sit down. He began to make friends and gain acceptance and used his precense to explain to the sit downers the conditions black workers faced. When the strike ended this worker was chosen to lead the parade.

It's critical of the Trot "industrial line" but also gives credit where credit is due.

Burt Cochran started off in MESA [see the Libcom history files] and almost destroyed it taking a good chuck of workers into the UAW. Then started regretting it in the 1950s.

on another note...

Leon Trotsky: Literature and Revolution

Ashtrays made of skulls are inconvenient and unhygienic.

fnbrilll

Dollinger was one of the women who founded the Woman's Committee during the Flint Sit down strike.

Striking Flint: Genora (Johnson) Dollinger Remembers the 1936-37 General Motors Sit-Down Strike ... as told to Susan Rosenthal (1981)

Entdinglichung

worst: e.g. Gerry Healy: A Revolutionary Life by Paul Feldman and Corinna Lotz (Foreword by Ken Livingstone) or Pierre Foulan's "Introduction into the Study of Marxism" (not available in English)

now online: https://archive.org/details/gerryhealyarevolutionarylife

"State Capitalism in Russia" by Tony Cliff.

This book has a lot of information about income inequality during the reign of Stalin and also stuff about how factory directors would receive bonuses and part of the profits for exceeding quotas

Here are a few quotes:

For instance, in 1937, when plant engineers were earning 1,500 roubles a month, directors 2,000 roubles – unless the government gave special permission for more to be earned – and skilled workers 200-300 roubles, the Soviet government introduced a minimum wage of 110 roubles a month for piece-workers and 115 roubles for timeworkers. That many workers earned only the bare minimum is clearly established by the fact that the law fixing these minima led to a budgetgrant of 600 million roubles for 1938.[196]

By comparison with such wages as these, 2,000 roubles a month was no mean salary. Not only this, but in addition to fixed salary, directors and plant engineers received bonuses, the size of which depend upon the extent to which their enterprise exceeds production quotas laid down in the economic plan..

Bureaucrats have yet another possible source of income from various state prizes. The original decree announcing the
establishment of the Stalin Prizes in honour of the leader’s sixtieth birthday limited their value to a maximum of 100,000 roubles each.[208] The maximum has since been raised to 300,000 roubles, and each year as many as a thousand Stalin Prizes are awarded, ranging from 50,000 to 300,000 roubles each, all tax-free.

Another clear pointer to the tremendous income differences in Russia is the income tax rates. The income tax rates of 4 April 1940,
listed a range of incomes that stretched from less than 1,800 roubles a year to more than 300,000 roubles.

In point of fact, the luxuries of the rich are relatively much cheaper than the necessities of the poor. This will be clearly perceived if we repeat a few figures of the turnover tax [...] As a result: “In mid-1948, the equivalent of the car Moskvich [costing9,000 roubles] was 310 pounds of butter [butter cost 62-66 roubles a pound], while in the United States a somewhat better car was worth
about as much as 1,750 pounds of butter.”

The differentiation of Russian society into privileged and pariahs was shown very graphically in the rationing system during the war. A differential rationing system was introduced, a thing that no-one would have dared to suggest in the democratic capitalist states of the West. It is true that this was shocking even to the Soviet people, so much so that neither Pravda nor Izvestia mentioned the subject at all and the rationing system as a whole was shrouded in mystery.

The book Revolutionary Rehearsals, an anthology edited by Colin Barker.
https://www.amazon.com/Revolutionary-Rehearsals-Colin-Barker/dp/1931859027

In depth studies of France 1968, Chile 1972-3, Portugal 1974-5, Iran 1979, Poland 1980-1. Each chapter is a demonstration of the power of the working class, and the mistakes that led to the defeat of that working class power. Mistakes like believing that leftist politicians are on our side, believing that business unions are on our side, failing to see the reformist tendencies in our leadership (even leadership of independent working class organizations), and various other mistakes.

I agree with their analysis almost completely, except the one point that they keep pounding in repeatedly: that what is needed to avoid future failure is a revolutionary working class vanguard party to lead the way.

I would tweak that lesson to say that a revolutionary *organization* is important in providing some sort of leadership role, but that this should be a leadership of ideas, not a leadership of decision making, and of course that this organization should never seek to take any sort of state power.

Just checked out the amazon customer reviews and found one with the same take as me:

The book is ultimately a cautionary tale against the betrayal by reformists who time and again try to keep a lid on the revolutionary impulse and channel mass struggle into the killing fields of bourgeois party politics.

The authors harp over and over, though, on a more suspect lesson, the one they claim is the most pressing: the need for a vanguard party to lead the workers in their struggles. I look at ISO/SWP Trotskyist literature much the same way as the Wall Street Journal: learn from the carefuly researched factual accounts, and through the editorials in the dustbin.

For a non-vanguardist account of Paris '68, the essays Murray Bookchin's terrifiic "Post-Scarcity Anarchism" are well worth reading. Also, I have heard that Loren Goldner's book on Portugal is excellent, presenting the events from a left-communist perspective.

I know people recommend CLR James a lot, also Hal Draper - "anatomy of the micro-sect" is one people talk about but I've not read myself, I have read "the two souls of socialism" which neatly shows Trotskyism at its strongest and weakest: there's a really good critique of Stalinism and top-down social democracy/reformism, then to make the argument work he has to throw in "also anarchism is authoritarian because Proudhon was bad and Bakunin was racist therefore Leninism/Trotskyism is the true libertarian socialism".
Victor Serge wasn't quite a Trot, but close enough, and his novels are great, and his writings from the height of the revolution are a good document.
Worst: too many to name, but off the top of my head Sean Matgamna's poetry, the AWL running a Latin headline in their paper, the SP giving space to the PCS leadership to justify calling off a strike the membership had voted for, Socialist Fight's "victory to ISIS", etc etc.

CLR James was only Trotskyist for about 15-20 years, although he never quite broke with Lenin.

Hal Draper's Anatomy of the Micro-Sect is relatively short and very good, and also has lessons for anarchist groups i.e. the difference between a 'political centre' (journal, publication) vs. a membership organisation is a good and useful distinction to think about. It also has some parallels to the Facing Reality discussion of a 'workers paper'.

I like Baruch Hirson's work a lot although he was mentioned upthread too.

I heard that Trotsky once wrote a nice letter to his mum.

As opposed to Sean Matgamna, who once wrote a very bad letter to his mum.

I haven't actually read it but Trotsky wrote in 1904 a critique of leninism where he may have predicted the future course of the Bolsheviks?

Here's a quote:

"In the internal politics of the Party these methods lead, as we shall see below, to the Party organisation “substituting” itself for the Party, the Central Committee substituting itself for the Party organisation, and finally the dictator substituting himself for the Central Committee..."

The whole text:

marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1904/tasks/index.htm

explainthingstome

I haven't actually read it but Trotsky wrote in 1904 a critique of leninism where he may have predicted the future course of the Bolsheviks?

That was pretty much the standard Menshevik position at the time. Trotsky only became a Bolshevik in 1917.

I'm aware of that, I used to be a trotskyist actually. I read a lot of his works but I don't remember much.